Its not as simple as it may seem chap 😉

Thanks for that Ben, I hope I’m not coming over as critical, just very nosey!:eek:
I know it is very hard work for you guys and it is extremely satisfying to us outsiders (though I’m miffed that I can’t lend a hand:o) to see all this work being carried out on ’63, which is now the most active Shackleton, getting all this attention.
The very least that she and everyone involved deserves is to see it running and in rude good health.:)

Happy Birthday Kev!:)

which is why if it persists in poor running we may have to review things. We’re giving it every chance we can though, which is why we’re looking at the mag drop, and other issues before condemning it.

The advice we got was that with the cams as bad as they are, it is unlikely to get any worse, if we do short runs at reduced power, making sure we take full advantage of the pre-oilers. The filters have been dropped a couple of times, and nothing found. The opinion of the experts was that she has been wearing the cams away longer than anyone realised.

But the fact is is that the cams are clearly knackered (from the previous photos), they can’t get better, they have gone beyond the hardened surfaces. It will persist with poor running in this condition.
I know that you know enough about engines that all those particles of metal have gone somewhere, even if the majority of the wear happened in the past, it will still be losing metal when it is run up and it will all be going into the oil system.
I get entirely that you want to run three engines while you can though, and I appreciate your openess in replying to my posts, which are probably being treated with a collective ‘bogoff’ at base!:)

Nice update Rich, and good to hear that everystep seems to be going in the right direction.

However as Bruce touches on be very wary about running the lump with cams that poor, aside from eventually ruining the top ends you are also circulating some pretty bad crap through the oil system componants and contaminating the oil itself.

Excellent photos Rob and fabulous rebuild, well done to the RFAM for this aspect of care for the historic site.

A watch office with a visual position was important before days of radio for the reason of looking out and making sure the the field was clear etc, think FISO but without the radio.
As mentioned above, alerting ground services was an important role.
The visual position was also useful for duty pilots to keep their eye on flying training and activity in general on the airfield.

Exactly what could be done to warn pilots of any possible problems or obstructions that may hinder them I don’t know, maybe coloured flags, or vary pistols were in use then?
There was also a system of markings on the ground and displayed on masts etc, but unsure if they were in use that far back.

The AM/RAF certainly used the term Watch Office into the post-war period, Control Tower seems to have come more from the civil side of things when their structures were definitely becoming more tower like, Croydon being a good example.

Well the question is Russian transports, and out of that little selection the 76 is more a transport than the others which are mainly airliners.
I’m not sure I’m fully persuaded by the radar issue being the sole reason for the glazing and positioning the nav in the front, I thought the USSR had good ground radar cover, and most of the types we are discussing were equiped with radar aswel as glazing.

The bomb that CD’s thinking of that the Americans dropped out of the back of Hercs was the BLU-82 (designed for the job, replacing the M 121) used in Vietnam to clear helicopter landing areas and in the first Gulf War for ‘shock and awe’ tactics, neither requiring major accuracy.

Not sure that those Daisy Cutters were aimed as such!:eek:

I get there is a difference here aswel, fast jet transports as opposed to lumbering British Piston jobs.